It’s always interesting to see what the grouse shooting lobby say on social media, and who retweets it. Here’s an example from last week by the newly formed (‘independent’) Campaign for the Protection of Moorland Communities;
This was retweeted by Amanda Anderson (as you can see above) the Director of the Moorland Association, by the not-so-talented Viscount Ridley (President of the Moorland Association) and a bunch of shooters. We don’t often see much enthusiasm for tweeting about birds of prey from these sources.
But hold! Here’s GWCT spin doctor doing just the same thing – what a coincidence.
This was retweeted by Amanda Anderson, Director of the Moorland Association, by the not-so-talented Viscount Ridley (President of the Moorland Association), C4PMC, Gethin Jones (argumentative wildfowler) and Duncan Thomas (BASC TV superstar). How lovely to see these people so engaged with birds of prey. They love ’em to bits!
C4PMC even wrote a blog about how brilliantly raptors are doing and how shocking it is that the police are investigating wildlife crimes against them. C4PCM are for the protection of moorland communities – so it is strange that they don’t mention the virtual elimination of Hen Harriers from the moorland avian communities on grouse moors, nor the well documented low densities and breeding success of Peregrine Falcons on grouse moors, nor … well, nor lots of other things.
Stephen Moss is a leading naturalist and writer but his words don’t often get this attention from the grousers. For example, I don’t recall them all falling over themselves to promote his piece in the Guardian in March which included the following;
We don’t see many of these beautiful birds [Hen Harriers] on the Somerset Levels; indeed nowadays, you don’t see many of them anywhere. That’s because hen harriers are still being illegally trapped and shot by gamekeepers on Scottish and English moorlands, to stop them killing red grouse.
We may disagree about some of the laws on the statute book, but we can’t just choose to ignore them. That’s why I sometimes struggle with the phrase “wildlife crime”; this is, quite simply, a crime. These mindless vandals try to justify their actions, even though the issue really is very straightforward: the clue is in the word “illegal”. Yet society continues to turn a blind eye to the routine killing of this magnificent bird of prey.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/10/birdwatch-a-fleeting-encounter-with-the-persecuted-hen-harrier
Stephen is, also, currently an RSPB Council member whose line on bird of prey persecution is well known.
Stephen told me:
I’m incensed that the shooting lobby have twisted my words to defend their own interests. On grouse moors, birds of prey are not doing well at all: hen harriers, peregrines and golden eagles are still being criminally killed by game shooting interests – and it’s high time that the industry faced up to the totally unacceptable criminal behaviour associated with their activities.
Tweet that Amanda, Andrew, Matt, Gethin, Duncan et al. !
[registration_form]
I’m sure that had Stephen Moss been asked about raptors populations on grouse moors he would have said something similar to the following.
Birds of prey are doing much more poorly on grouse moors and surroundings than they should be compared to the rest of the country, where raptors are largely doing very well. This sad fact is probably due to the high levels of persecution in such places.
The Grouse cabal will not be tweeting that either, they have an serious aversion for the truth in these matters.
I never thought I’d have to take issue with anything Stephen Moss said, but that last line in the Guardian piece really isn’t good.
‘Yet society continues to turn a blind eye to the routine killing of this magnificent bird of prey.’
Bit of a hobby horse of mine I know but it can’t be said too often, society would not be turning a blind eye if society knew the full story that the RSPB isn’t keen on them knowing.
Firstly, people have a right to expect that, having paid their membership fees, the RSPB would loudly condemn on their behalf any such criminal activity. That is partly what they pay for.
Secondly, exactly what is a hen harrier? Most of us had heard of a Golden Eagle from childhood, and would wish to protect it even if we had never seen one. Many are now learning about and seeing Buzzards and Kites. But what is this hen harrier? Is it even a bird?
This is exactly why Mary Colwell’s ambition (yesterday’s blog) desperately needs to come to fruition. If its not taught in schools, we are reliant on organisations such as the RSPB to do the teaching.
People will love and care for that to which they can put a name.
Another gratuitous and dishonest attack on the RSPB. These people have to be closet supporters of the shooting industry, because they are the only people that will benefit from it.
The RSPB is not a single issue group: 200+ nature reserves to run, 100’s of conservation projects, plus the investigations team and the work they do. They are doing a GREAT JOB for conservation overall -even if they do not live up to the unreasonably high expectations of the single-issue zealots.
I am as incensed about the slaughter of our raptors as the most rabid anti-RSPB zealot. There are many groups working to end this appalling situation, including the RSPB, the police, the LACS, RSPCA and the many raptor and moorland monitoring groups. Even the National Trust and the National Park Authorities are waking up to the problem, what needs doing about it and are starting to take action. It is their inertia that needs criticism not the RSPB.
Simon, you really do need to read my comment again. In fact, go back and read all of my comments on this subject.
I have been a member of the RSPB for 40 years, a lifer for the past 27. Do you really believe that if you support something, then you must never open your mouth to criticise. Is that what you think?
I believe the opposite. I believe that in paying into an organisation for so many years, you have a duty to speak up when you feel something is wrong.
I have supported their excellent investigations team both in print and with money. I have paid into countless appeals during that time and I have expressed my gratitude and respect for their staff and volunteers.
However, I do have a problem with the management. The management who I believe are not supporting their own investigations team as they should.
I have no idea how many members are life members but I’m guessing that it is a very small percentage. In our spring edition of Fellows news, the back page was headed ‘bird crime‘ Crime and punishment. An article on illegal persecution by Jenny Shelton who says ‘Enough is enough’.
Simon, instead of the RSPB preaching to the converted, don’t you think that this would have been better placed in ‘Nature’s Home’?
In fact, I would like to see a multi page article on raptor crime, graphic photos included. Instead, when it is mentioned, as it is in the current edition, it is hidden away on page 46 in the news section. Is that informing their members?
From memory, Mark’s last petition gained 137k signatures. How many more would it have gained had the RSPB supported it? In fact, they didn’t have to support it, they just had to give the facts to their 1.2 million members to make up their own minds. But they didn’t. And yes, I have a problem with that, with MY RSPB. So if I want to criticise their position then my opinion counts just as much as anybody else’s.
I would be happy to debate this point with anybody, but I would ask that they be respectful. To start by saying that I am being dishonest and gratuitous, that I must be a shooting supporter is really not the best way to start a conversation.
If you are still reading this, I will add for clarity that I am also a life member of LACS and used to be a member of the NT until it became clear that they had no intention of stopping hunting on their land. Oh yes, I criticised them as well.
You don’t change minds by keeping quite. Ever.
You could say the same thing about other RSPB council members who have been seen shooting protected birds…..
Steve Green – could you?